Here we go again: Climategate 2.0

1. 58

   emrldphxposted 6 years ago

   I wonder when the majority of the public is going to acknowledge that scientists, deriving their grant money from governments, are often biased, or outright liars?
   
   http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … ng-debate/

   replyreport
   1. 58

      LookingForWaldenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Regardless of climate change , shouldn't the current population leave the world in better shape than we inherited it?
      It seems rather irresponsible to not do so.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is using bum-science to try and force political issues. For example, there is nothing wrong with drilling for oil in the US to lower prices and boost the economy, while we simultaneously work on other forms of energy, and work to put in place a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure to replace gas.
         
         Politics should never get into science. All this money governments spend trying to uphold new climate change research could go into making more efficient forms of solar energy products, or any other number of things. It's a corrupt usage of money.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            road2hellposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You are right!  Politics shouldn't get involved in science.  But it does! By the politicans not by the scientists!  Scientists do not force political issues.  The corporations througoh lobbying and money contributions push the politicans to ignore and criticize any sound science about climate change.  They do not want the public know the truth about global warming.  The hoax is believing that global warming is a hoax.  Think about it....

            replyreport
   2. 62

      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What about the ones getting money from the Koch Brothers, Exxon, the coal companies, the Heritage Foundation and the electric power industry.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, they could be biased too. I never said otherwise.
         
         The scary thing is, we have emails now that talk about the chief temperature databases being manipulated to look better.

         replyreport
   3. 62

      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your views are quite predictable. I fear you're suffering from the Tea Party syndrome.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, I only care about the truth. These 'scientists' working on climate control are an affront to the name of science. In a way, I don't blame them. If they oppose it they would basically lose their future. The community at large needs to take a stand and take back science from the politicians. Occupy Laboratories?

         replyreport
   4. 76

      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Global warming is real. I trust Richard Mueller (and my father).
      
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/3 … 66029.html
      
      The issue, however, is that it's not really a huge deal. The Earth can be cooled by increasing cloud cover.
      
      All we need to do is invest a few million into increasing cloud cover 5% (or so) and we'll be back to normal.

      replyreport
   5. 88

      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      From what I've heard, the new release doesn't contain anything more recent than 2009, so it seems likely they were stolen at the same time as the first batch. It smacks more of desperation to me than anything else - they obviously released the cream of the crop with the first batch and as carefully as the Heritage Foundation guy could cherry pick the quotes, I really don't see anything damning in this second release.
      
      For starters, at least 6 independent investigations exonerated the scientists involved in the original emails of any scientific wrongdoing, but several of the investigation reports criticized the scientists for not being sufficiently open. The talk of deleting emails and such is simply more of the same. If there were some 2011 emails mixed in with the batch, it might be worse, because then it would suggest that they're continuing to be overly secretive, but there aren't.
      
      I don't see any smoking guns in the quotes directly relating to science, either, though I'd need to see more context to know for sure. One that stood out as being a particularly misleading example of quote mining was the one on troposphere data. The inadequacy of data on temperature changes in the troposphere is well known and openly discussed, not covered up at all. It's also worth noting that that particular email was from 2005 and referred to the first draft of the 2007 IPCC report, not the final version.
      
      More hilariously, if you read the full email and not just the cherry-picked quote about the figure being "deceptive" and there being "dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC," Wigley appears to be criticizing the creator of the figure (Schmidt, not Mann) and the IPCC for underestimating climate sensitivity, not overestimating it. How convenient that Taylor overlooked that little detail when doing his cherry-picking.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Climate change science(read:politics) is no less lucrative than any other corrupt problem we have. We've been over this before. These are the same groups 'exonorating' the scientists who think it is OK to use a data source that we know doesn't work now, and assume it worked in the past.
         
         Do you want me to start posting full emails? Would that help?
         
         The whole thing is crock. I even saw two different charts on the NASA website that were 0.6 degrees different from each other.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You're really stuck on the tree ring thing, aren't you? IF tree rings were the only source of temperature data they used, I might understand your obsession a bit more, but they're not, and because they're not, we know that the tree ring data was consistent with other types of data for many years and then suddenly diverged. It puzzles me that you're so obsessed with tarring the past data as inaccurate despite all evidence to the contrary, while apparently being not the least bit curious about why it might have diverged. That's by far the more interesting question in my opinion.
            
            Post away.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I honestly just get tired of arguing with people who take the word of news reporters, politicians, and scientists paid by the government as gospel without ever thinking maybe something is up.
               
               I point to the tree rings as just one problem. Yes, they diverged, but we still assume they are good for the past. Different data sets have been dropped because they didn't match our 'historical' temperature records.
               
               Wasn't it 2012 when the polar caps would be completely melted and we'd be under 100 feet of water?
               
               Yeah, I want to know what's wrong with tree rings. I want to know what's up with all the data sets we use, but our esteemed researchers don't have original copies of most data sets.
               
               The reason they released more emails is because they have several hundred thousand of them, so they try to release the most relevant ones. I doubt anyone has read them all yet.
               
               As for the troposphere, I'm not sure which email you are referring to as there are more than one.
               
               Really, I don't even care to read through them all. I've looked at the temperature data sets, and interestingly enough, it's always the worst ones that are published widely. All of the projections have been shown to be wrong already, seeing as we are at nearly 0, instead of the 1-1.5 we were supposed to be at.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Who is taking anything as gospel? I've been interested in climate science since I was in elementary school and in the intervening 20 years, I've read widely in both pro and anti AGW camps.
                  
                  "Yes, they diverged, but we still assume they are good for the past."
                  
                  We don't "assume," we have corroborating evidence.
                  
                  "Wasn't it 2012 when the polar caps would be completely melted and we'd be under 100 feet of water?"
                  
                  Actually, as recently as 2007 most scientists thought the Arctic wouldn't be ice free in summer until 2100. Since the observed melting has dramatically outpaced the IPCC's predictions, the date is now estimated to arrive in the 2020's or 2030's. I've seen predictions for an ice-free Arctic summer by both 2012 and 2015, but they are outliers. (Though, technically, they have not yet been proven wrong.) I have not seen any serious scientific prediction claiming that the entire polar ice cap would be gone by 2012 and sea levels would be 100 feet higher, and would be most interested to see where you have. Honestly, it sounds more like something you got from Hollywood, or else just made up yourself in an attempt to make climate scientists sound ridiculous.
                  
                  "our esteemed researchers don't have original copies of most data sets."
                  
                  Citation?
                  
                  "The reason they released more emails is because they have several hundred thousand of them, so they try to release the most relevant ones."
                  
                  If that's what you want to believe.
                  
                  "As for the troposphere, I'm not sure which email you are referring to as there are more than one."
                  
                  Peter Thorne's: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary."
                  
                  "Really, I don't even care to read through them all. I've looked at the temperature data sets, and interestingly enough, it's always the worst ones that are published widely. All of the projections have been shown to be wrong already, seeing as we are at nearly 0, instead of the 1-1.5 we were supposed to be at."
                  
                  Speaking of temperature data sets, have you been able to get at the BEST data set yet? It's working for me: http://berkeleyearth.org/data.php

                  replyreport
2. 58

   LookingForWaldenposted 6 years ago

   I agree with you when as far as agenda based science is worse than useless.
   However, from working at a civil engineering firm I can tell you Im happy with some of the regulations in regards to things like protected wetlands and watersheds.
   Also, because of the government last year we became the first country in the worlds history not to over fish one species.
   That was a monumental achievement.

   replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

   "Some flowers, like roses, have actually begun to blossom for a second time,' said Mats Rosenberg, a biologist in Orebro, south-central Sweden.
   
   Weather experts say this autumn is on track to become one of the warmest on record in northern Scandinavia, where the start of winter has been delayed by more than a month in certain locations."

   replyreport